LGATs/Encounter groups/Confrontational "therapy"

[DannyB II]

URSUS YOU FORGOT THIS PART;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Group_Awareness_Training
This article may contain improper references to self-published sources. Please help improve it by removing references to unreliable sources where they are used inappropriately. (March 2008)

 
No Ursus you forgot to explicitly point this out. OK!!!!!!!

Uhhh, yeah....that pretty much goes along with any "wikipedia" link.  Are you not aware of this?

Anne, go to page 5 on this thread and you'll find this response.



No you are not getting my point, your right everyone does understand that wikipedia has this clause, dumbunny.
But what everyone doesn't get here is you do not like to own that your myriad of posts you flood this site with are all just as suspect of flaws.
Now do you get it.......my copy and paste man.

[Anne Bonney]

Ursus your predictable.....

YOU'RE!!!!!!    Contraction of "you" and "are".....thus, "you're"!!!   Translation:   Ursus you are predictable



English Your vs You're

What's the difference between your and you're? Your presence on this page means you're about to find out.

Your
Your is the second person possessive adjective, used to describe something as belonging to you. Your is nearly always followed by a noun.

    What is your name?

    Is this your pen?

    Your book is on the table.

    This is your chair and this is mine.

    What happened to your dog?

    Your being here is causing some problems.


You're
You're is the contraction of "you are" and is often followed by the present participle (verb form ending in -ing).

    You're going to be late.

    Is that what you're wearing?

    I think you're lying.

    If you're ready, we can go.

    I can't believe you're a doctor!

    When you're my age, you'll understand.

 
The Bottom Line

The confusion between your and you're occurs because the two words are pronounced pretty much the same.

The ironclad rule - no exceptions - is that if you're able to replace the word with "you are," you're saying you're. Otherwise, your only choice is your.

[Ursus]

The entirety of that post, as originally posted, follows; sure wouldn't want to leave out some of that context:  

URSUS YOU FORGOT THIS PART;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Group_Awareness_Training
This article may contain improper references to self-published sources. Please help improve it by removing references to unreliable sources where they are used inappropriately. (March 2008)

 
No Ursus you forgot to explicitly point this out. OK!!!!!!!

No, Danny, it's already understood by just about anyone who uses the internet. Now you know.

No you are not getting my point, your right everyone does understand that wikipedia has this clause, dumbass.
But what everyone doesn't get here is you do not like to own that your myriad of posts you flood this site with are all just as suspect of flaws.
Now do you get it.......my copy and paste man.

[Anne Bonney]

URSUS YOU FORGOT THIS PART;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Group_Awareness_Training
This article may contain improper references to self-published sources. Please help improve it by removing references to unreliable sources where they are used inappropriately. (March 2008)

 
No Ursus you forgot to explicitly point this out. OK!!!!!!!

Uhhh, yeah....that pretty much goes along with any "wikipedia" link.  Are you not aware of this?

Anne, go to page 5 on this thread and you'll find this response.



No you are not getting my point, your right everyone does understand that wikipedia has this clause, dumbunny.
But what everyone doesn't get here is you do not like to own that your myriad of posts you flood this site with are all just as suspect of flaws.
Now do you get it.......my copy and paste man.

 :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:


Do you hear yourself?

[Ursus]

@Danny: you're really into this stuff, eh? There's a good sprinkling of MKP in the Hyde Schools forum, given that a fair number of the adults in the Hyde community have seen fit to involve themselves with it. Particularly "high ranking" members of the community, lol.

Ursus your predictable.......lol.
Ursus have you done the Warrior Weekend ?
WOW....Hyde school emplyees, ex-programees and particularly "high ranking" members of the community. What does this mean Ursus, that all the residents at Hyde are sitting around naked touching the privates parts of the student to their left, with the "high ranking" members sitting up in front single handedly showing the way.......lol.
"Please tell me this is not so".
I think Chuck Berry sang a song, "Hand Jiving". Is this how they sing "Jingle Bells" at Hyde.

Perhaps the Chuck Berry song you meant to refer to was this one? ("silver bells hangin' on a string"...    )

And no, it doesn't "frighten" me, although it does seem rather important to you to characterize me that way.

Well read your comment, Mr Giggle pants.

So tell me, Danny, why is this Mankind Project and their New Warrior Training Adventure such a sacred cow for you?

Also, how did you come to get involved with this organization? Did your AA Sponsor introduce to them, perchance?

[DannyB II]

Ursus wrote:
So tell me, Danny, why is this Mankind Project and their  New Warrior Training Adventure such a  sacred cow for you?  

Danny wrote:
I am impressed that you would put my interest in the Warrior Weekend in such a contexts of a "sacred cow". As I'm sure you know the cow is extremely sacred in many cultures to this day. Prayed to and used as a dowry to acquire a bride, it is also very mythical.
I have one problem though and then I'll answer your question. You have not answered my question that I asked first, "did you attend a Warrior Weekend".

[DannyB II]

Perhaps the Chuck Berry song you meant to refer to was this one? ("silver bells hangin' on a string"... )

No I meant Hand-Jive, Johnny Otis's 1958.
Since the only thing you remember concerning the Warrior Weekend were men fondling other men, I felt this song was appropriate for you and your Hyde buddies.
You can stop giggling now.  

danny

[DannyB II]

Anne wrote:
Do you hear yourself?[/quote]

Danny wrote:
Tommy can you here meeeeee.........
Ground control to Major Tong..........

yes mrs. douchebag I can and yuor rigkt I've love you long time,,,no no no stop it....ants.

Danny

P.S. excuse me but we have to go home now..... :beat:  :beat:

[DannyB II]

Ursus sort of wrote:
Also, how did you come to get involved with this organization (Mankind)? Did your AA Sponsor introduce to them, did Hyde upper echelon management introduce them, did Elan introduce them, did another LGAT introduce them.

Danny wrote:
Ursus No, No, No and No. My brother and I were hanging with some Blackfoot Sioux in the "Badlands" area back in the late 80's, we were being introduced to a ceremony called "sweating". It was after this sweat we were confronted by a chief who asked if we had ever heard of the Mankind Project and The Warrior Weekend. The Chief was asking out of sheer curiosity, someone had told him about it. From that point I looked into it further did not really become all that excited, so I dropped it at that point. Picked it back up when I did some business in Memphis,Tn. Got with a group of fishing buddies as a matter of fact and we did it together. This was some down and out, in your face, I'll kick your ass, blind folded naked, active role playing manly stuff...dude. Definitely not for the effeminate, know what I mean Ursus.
As a matter of fact we had a guy there who refused to get naked so he left, come to find out this guy exposed himself to young girls. Now what is up with that.
Now let me clear up something here, just because I do not agree with your ignorant comments  concerning AA principles does not necessarily translate to I'm still a active member of AA. I do not nor have had a sponser in nearly 15 yrs.
Keep trying Ursus.

danny

[Pile of Dead Kids]

a chief

Hi yuh yuh yuh?

[Awake]

So it seems worst case is that LGAT is controversial.  It hasnt been found to be abusive by the APA.  In fact I believe they defended it at one point.  Studies have shown positive change as a result of LGAT's and no significant changes in behavior.  So it is fairly benign in nature.

From the conclusion of the paper posted earlier in this thread, "Pathology as 'Personal Growth': A Participant-Observation Study of Lifespring Training," color emphasis added:

Conclusion

We have argued that while many participants experienced a sense of enhanced well-being as a consequence of the training, these experiences were essentially pathological. First, ego functions were systematically undermined and regression was promoted by environmental structuring, infantilizing of participants and repeated emphasis on submission and surrender. Second, the ideational or interpretive framework provided in the training was also based upon regressive modes of reasoning--the use of all-or-nothing categories, absolutist logic and magical thinking, all of which are consistent with the egocentric thinking of young children. Third, the content of the training stimulated early narcissistic conflicts and defenses, which accounts for the elation and sense of heightened well-being achieved by many participants. The devaluation of objective constraints upon a person's action promoted grandiose fantasies of unlimited power. A corollary to this devaluation of the external world wits that interactions with others lacked substance. People appeared to be interchangeable so that ephemeral, indiscriminate emotional contacts were experienced as profound and meaningful. Identification with Lifespring necessitated considerable idealization so that any threat to this experience was aggressively defended against.[/list]

 I identify completely with the article’s pathological explanation for ‘personal growth’, and my experience at Cedu, which is very relatable as Mel Wasserman purchased the rights to use Lifespring there.  I Would like to add to this article a perspective that seems amiss.  I can only speculate the original intent, but the context seems to be very dependent on the imposition of double binds.  I see a lot of focus on regression, catharsis, and transference explanations for  pathological change, but the content of the Lifespring training is replete with paradox, the context for double binding.  It is interesting in this case that the double bind is imposed incrementally upon the subjects who had already chosen the training, albeit without informed consent.

The implementation of LGAT methods in the troubled teen industry, a clear double bind context that leaves the teen without choice, is a  statement from the industry that the intent of therapy is to rob teens of their free will.

I’ll leave this to reference the double bind   viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30423&start=0  but it is clear that the context is present in the training. Furthermore, in the lifespring training, the three ‘vehicles’ to personal growth are the epitome of Double Bind theory, the ‘Be Spontaneous’ paradox.  “The key phrases, which described the vehicle to personal growth, were "submission," "100 percent commitment," and "spontaneity".”


The Be Spontaneous paradox is as close to the heart of Double Bind theory as it gets.  The injunction ‘be spontaneous’ (or any other demanding injunction related to spontaneous activity and unconscious processes) in a double bind setting is a cornerstone of the Double Bind theory of schizophrenia as an interactional pathology.  

In general  I have seen that the Lifespring training ‘teaches’ by placing the subjects in paradoxical ‘no win’ situations.  I’m going to place some tidbits from the article below that I feel will identify the double bind and the imposition of paradox as ‘growth’.


Pathology as "Personal Growth":  http://www.rickross.com/reference/lifes ... ring4.html
A Participant-Observation Study of Lifespring Training
Psychiatry, Vol 46, August 1983

“We argue that although participants often experience a heightened sense of well-being as a consequence of the training, the phenomenon is essentially pathological. By pathological, we mean that the training systematically undermines ego functioning and promotes regression to the extent that reality testing is significantly impaired.”

“The interpretive framework adopted here is supported by several psychoanalytic premises concerning group behavior. In discussing the relationship between ego functions and group behavior, Freud noted that "intensification of the affects and the inhibition of the intellect" characterized "primitive groups" (1959 p 20). Primitive groups promote the blurring of ego boundaries and psychological merger with the group leader, who serves as an ego ideal for group members. By projecting ego and superego functions, e.g. the regulation and control of impulses, into the leader, members may express infantile aggressive and libidinal drives normally held in constraint. (Kernberg 1980 p212). This psychological state may be described as regressive in that it is reminiscent of the experience of early childhood—the oceanic experience of oneness with the all-good, protective parent who mediates between the child’s immediate needs and the external world.”

“The promise of "personal growth" held out by the organizations and zealous graduates was both nonspecific and unlimited.” [Awake says- This implies a need, by Lifespring , that deception is required in order to function, there is no real informed consent possible.]

“Reasoning and intellectual processes were minimized while affective states were intensified.” [Awake says- Classic theory of hypnosis, and one of the Cedu tools the ‘I and ME’,  the overall tool implied splitting one’s self concept of Thinking and Feeling into one where your ‘Thinking” was ‘a lie’ or ‘not really you’, while feeling was really who you are.  This ramped up version of Lifespring, Cedu, seems to have wanted to produce individuals who were particularly hypnotically susceptible.}

“Awareness was defined as "understanding things as they are." [Awake says- This statement, taken from the position of submissiveness, implies the Lifespring trainees believe a viewpoint from the trainer that they do not really understand things, and they are not aware. The conscious mind does not keep track of all the messages coming from multiple levels contained within the context of the situation, but unconscious to us, our brains still process and react those messages to create the experience of the individual.]

"Everything has always been available to you. It’s a matter of noticing it, of awareness."

"What am I pretending not to know?" [Awake- A double bind, think about what you are not conscious of]

how to achieve "full value" from the training.[Awake- The deutero- learning message, received outside of conscious awareness,  is that the subject will trust the trainer if they are to learn how to gain ‘full value’  because there is no definition of what is to be gained from the ambiguous promise of ‘personal growth’.]

The key phrases, which described the vehicle to personal growth, were "submission," "100 percent commitment," and "spontaneity".

In order to speak, participants had to stand, he acknowledged by the leader and speak into a microphone. The audience was to applaud after the person finished speaking, presumably indicating support for the "risk of sharing."[Awake- expressions of support are directed, in favor of the trainer and participants without regard for the content of the senders message. This is a double bind that makes it impossible to interpret communication as genuine even if that is the true intent. Genuine feeling is construed in favour of the leader under the context.]

What was rewarded by the trainer was compliance or pseudocompliance. Participants who offered critical comments or who suggested a different way of conceptualizing a problem had their statements dismissed were subjected to ridicule or were confused with paradoxical logic. The "dissenter" was generally maneuvered into some form of compliance before being permitted to sit down and receive the applause.

The use of confusing "double talk" was particularly effective in disarming those who threatened to delegitimize the trainer's position. Statements such as "What you think isn't is, and what you think is isn't," or "Well, what is the answer?" were perplexing enough to cause the participant to fatter in uncertainty. The suggestion that the participant was disturbed, confused, "avoiding," or "game-playing" were other tactics used to discredit objecting participants. [Awake- logical arguments are responded with paradox, and the resulting dissociated behaviour of the subject is labelled as manipulative, lying, or crazy. This is a classic example of the Double Bind Theory of Scizophrenia. (Note this concept is a distinct reference to a context that produces the diagnosis of such.)]

participants, become increasingly reliant upon the trainer to interpret reality. [Awake- transference from within the double bind context]

“The trainer began with a discussion of "how we respond to events." He argued that by "resisting events" or "attempting to change them," people merely rely on prior belief systems or "automatic" ways of interpreting the world. This way of responding is a reactive one which ties people to the experience of the past and to unrealistic expectations for the future. The trainer emphasized that "coming from a position of change never works," On the other hand, "submission" to events and acceptance of things as they are results In "creative choice," "awareness," "joy" and "growth." The paradox of this implicitly conservative message was that personal control was promoted through submission or surrender to the existing reality of the trainer.” [Awake-  Aside from the noted paradox implied that ‘personal growth comes from submission’ there is another. The beginning of the training required ‘spontaneity’ and it abruptly switches to a contradictory message of ‘getting off automatic’ and dissociating from automatic responses.]

“Shifting from the emphasis upon submission and trust, the trainer suggested that we were totally responsible for all events, in our lives--"100 percent accountable"--including the selection of our parents. An exercise designed to illustrate the theme of "taking full responsibility" involved the use of pairs. Partners were to tell each other of an occasion when each had been victimized. Several people told stories about having been beaten by a parent as a child. We were then instructed to retell the story from a position of 100 percent accountability--in other words, how we "set things up to be that way." [Awake- a sudden shift from ‘submission’ to ‘100% accountability’ with the focus on uncontrollable events. This suggests the intent to double bind the subjects by teaching them there is no right.]

The language of the human potential movement, which provided the "official" lexicon of Lifespring, seemed to exhaust and encompass all of human experience, e.g., "getting off automatic," "going for it," "taking risks," "taking responsibility," and "creating your own reality." These phrases took on an almost magical communicative power within the group.  

Exercises which mobilized narcissistic defenses, i.e., feelings of inflated well-being and exaggerated personal power, were alternated with attacking exercises, which were narcissistically injurious. The latter evoked feelings of shame and worthlessness and made the group vulnerable to the judgments of the leader. One example involved a game called "Red and Black," which required the group to divide into two teams and develop strategies, based upon a set of rules, for achieving the greatest number of points. Neither team was able to recognize that the main contingency for getting the maximum number of points was that both teams succeed. Essentially, if one team lost, both lost. And both teams did lose. This exercise could have been an occasion for discussing the cultural context of competition and aspects of our society which make it difficult to identify cooperative contingencies. Instead, the trainer castigated participants, finally stating with disgust, "You all make me sick." Since the exercise was at the close of the evening, we were to go home and reflect upon what we had learned. Many participants were silent and tearful as we closed the evening session. [Awake- To me this represents the point in double binding in which the subject has lost their ‘meta’ perspective over conditions of ‘hurt and rescue’ or ‘help and hurt’. They are taught to be accepting of punishment as ‘love’.]

it soon became apparent that he had decompensated--his speech was incoherent, he was out of contact with reality, and he appeared to be hallucinating. The trainer approached him and told him to stop "game playing." His "other choice" was to "go to a place where they allow people to play crazy games." Patrick merely gazed vacantly at the trainer and continued to mutter Lifespring phrases.[Awake- the subject is threatened with a dispensing of existence with a label of ‘crazy’.]

When it became clear that Patrick was unable to pull himself together, the other participants were asked to leave the room.

In the wake of the morning's events, affective states were intensified and a mood of hysteria was palpable. While loving feelings were directed toward Lifespring, the hostile component of what had been evoked was now directed more intensively toward the participant- researcher. One participant stood and stated, "I've got something to say to Dick. You know, I really hate Dick!" Another participant charged, "You don't give your love, Dick. All I want, Dick, is for you to love. And you hold back your love!" When Dick explained his reactions to the events of the morning, various participants shouted out angrily, "You're coming from your head, stop analyzing, come from your heart."[Awake- The pathology has been learned by the subjects to impose injunctions and beliefs onto their peers that will compound the effect in the social environment.  The double bind ‘I demand you love me’ robs the receiver of the option for a genuine response.]

(end  of Pathology as "Personal Growth":
A Participant-Observation Study of Lifespring Training
Psychiatry, Vol 46, August 1983
By Janice Haaken, Ph.D. and Richard Adams, Ph.D.)


And for the unquestionable condition of using LGAT in a double bind context all one needs to do is look to the Troubled Teen Industry’s advantage right here  viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30423&start=0  


.

[Joel]

Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010

[Dr. Acula]

Anne wrote:
Do you hear yourself?

Danny wrote:
Tommy can you here meeeeee.........
Ground control to Major Tong..........

yes mrs. douchebag I can and yuor rigkt I've love you long time,,,no no no stop it....ants.

Danny

P.S. excuse me but we have to go home now..... :beat:  :beat:[/quote]

Ground control to Major Tong..........

?
Where the HELL do you get your lyrics? :beat:

[Ursus]

Do you hear yourself?

Tommy can you here meeeeee.........
Ground control to Major Tong..........

yes mrs. douchebag I can and yuor rigkt I've love you long time,,,no no no stop it....ants.

Danny

P.S. excuse me but we have to go home now..... :beat:  :beat:

Ground control to Major Tong..........

?
Where the HELL do you get your lyrics? :beat:

  Flash back to the past!! ...The first one is from the title track to The Who's rock opera "Tommy." The second is from David Bowie's "Space Oddity." Older and newer versions from YouTube:

• The Who - Tommy Can You Hear Me?
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8tR2qKrWyg

[/li][/list]

• The Who- Overture (Tommy)
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce2Bc3lGG7c

[/li][/list]

• David Bowie- Space Oddity Original Video (1969)
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D67kmFzSh_o

[/li][/list]

• David Bowie "Space Oddity" (1975?)
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssnxo4lNp8w

[/li][/list]

...And some more goodies from "Tommy," just 'cuz I ran across them whilst looking for the above:

• The Who - I'm Free (1969)
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_CXaeN5QNU

[/li][/list]

• Tommy - I'm Free - Roger Daltrey (The Who) (from the movie)
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGa70tVYVKo

[/li][/list]

• The Who See Me Feel Me Woodstock 1969 (Director's cut)
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7AHblQ3_oM

[/li][/list]

• THE WHO - See Me, Feel Me - Listening to You (1975)
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QV_9pn7MGUo

[/li][/list]

[Ursus]

Also, how did you come to get involved with this organization? Did your AA Sponsor introduce to them, perchance?

Also, how did you come to get involved with this organization (Mankind)? Did your AA Sponsor introduce to them, did Hyde upper echelon management introduce them, did Elan introduce them, did another LGAT introduce them.

Ursus No, No, No and No. My brother and I were hanging with some Blackfoot Sioux in the "Badlands" area back in the late 80's, we were being introduced to a ceremony called "sweating". It was after this sweat we were confronted by a chief who asked if we had ever heard of the Mankind Project and The Warrior Weekend. The Chief was asking out of sheer curiosity, someone had told him about it. From that point I looked into it further did not really become all that excited, so I dropped it at that point. Picked it back up when I did some business in Memphis,Tn. Got with a group of fishing buddies as a matter of fact and we did it together. This was some down and out, in your face, I'll kick your ass, blind folded naked, active role playing manly stuff...dude. Definitely not for the effeminate, know what I mean Ursus.
As a matter of fact we had a guy there who refused to get naked so he left, come to find out this guy exposed himself to young girls. Now what is up with that.
Now let me clear up something here, just because I do not agree with your ignorant comments  concerning AA principles does not necessarily translate to I'm still a active member of AA. I do not nor have had a sponser in nearly 15 yrs.
Keep trying Ursus.

Lol. I'm not sure why you assumed I was trying to "confront you." I just asked you two questions, pretty benign ones at that, I would have thought...

I asked about the AA Sponsor 'cuz that has been the route of introduction for some folk. In fact, I seem to remember that Michael Scinto even got introduced to MKP via his Sponsor, though I might be remembering that wrong, or missing some important context.

Tell me, what exactly are you trying to imply by this statement, if anything:

"As a matter of fact we had a guy there who refused to get naked so he left, come to find out this guy exposed himself to young girls. Now what is up with that."[/list]

Do you think that men who do not feel comfortable getting naked with dozens of other men and doing "some down and out, in your face, I'll kick your ass, blind folded naked, active role playing manly stuff" ... are more likely to be sexual deviants? Is that pretty much the consensus these days? Jes askin', I'm curious how the "inner circle" sees this phenomenon...

Also, was this guy someone you actually met, or someone the others told you about?